- Email: [email protected]
Turkeys Grown in Confinement and on Range
E F F E C T OF E N V I R O N M E N T ON R E P R O D U C T I O N
Wilson, W. O., 1949. High environmental temperatures as affecting the reaction of laying hens to iodized casein. Poultry Sci. 28: 581-592. Wilson, W. O., E. H. McNally and H. Ota, 1957. Temperature and calorimeter study on hens in individual cages. Poultry Sci. 35: 1254-1262. Warren, D. C, R. Comad, A. E. Schumacher and T. B. Avery, 1950. Effects of fluctuating environ-
1087
ment on laying hens. Kansas Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull. 68:43 pp. Wheeler, N. C, and F. N. Andrews, 1943. The influence of season on semen production in the domestic fowl. Poultry Sci. 22: 361-366. Winchester, C. F., and V. C. Scarborough, 1953. Influence of thyroxine on growth and egg production of chickens. Poultry Sci. 32: 423-429.
LOYAL F.
PAYNE
Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas (Received for publication March 9, 1959)
M
A N Y experiments have been conducted comparing results of turkeys grown in confinement and on restricted or free range. While providing houses or sheds for rearing in confinement adds materially to the cost of equipment, the reduction in labor, losses from storms, stampede, predatory animals, and disease tend to offset, over a period of years, the added cost. The relatively inexpensive pole-type house has become popular, since it can be used for the dual purpose of shelter for the breeding flock and rearing quarters for young turkeys. This system requires additional brooding facilities to accommodate the young stock until six or eight weeks of age or until after the breeding season terminates. I n this way the housing facilities are in use almost the year round. Some of the questions t h a t concern growers relate to the feasibility of confinement rearing as affected b y mortality, rate of growth, feed efficiency, and the quality of mature birds. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Rettger and Kirkpatrick (1927) first Contribution number 245, Department of Poultry Husbandry, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan.
reared turkeys in confinement at Storrs, Connecticut, in 1917. During the ten years which followed they developed the four yard rotation system in which the growing turkeys occupied each yard one week in four. This proved to be a popular and a satisfactory procedure to avoid heavy losses from blackhead disease. Brooks (1927) reported on turkeys reared on clean ground in a four y a r d rotation system, with some losses from blackhead. His report on turkeys reared in confinement was incomplete. Brown (1924) reared to m a t u r i t y 96 percent of poults started in England in 1921 to 1923 on a small acreage of land. Van Es and Olney (1941) compared mortality losses from blackhead among turkeys in a sanitary gravel or hardwarecloth floored yard 30 by 60 feet and an insalubrious farm yard of equal size over a period of eight years (1929-1936). The total loss from blackhead for the entire period was 2.13 percent in the sanitary yard and 41.81 percent in the insanitary yard with no covering over the native soil. Kennard and Chamberlin (1930) reared turkeys on range, confined in houses only, and in houses with wire floored runways attached. T h e y found no significant dif-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on June 11, 2015
Turkeys Grown in Confinement and on Range
1088
L. F. PAYNE
Milby and Thompson (1940) in two trials in 1939 and 1940, found no significant difference in rate of growth between turkeys reared in confinement, in a house supplemented with a bare yard, or on a Bermuda grass range. In the confined groups feed consumption was slightly greater per unit of gain than in the range group, and there was no difference in mortality. Moore et al. (1954) compared turkeys reared in a pole-type house and on range, and found no significant difference in live market quality in the two groups, but lower mortality in the confined birds. The range reared lot held a slight advantage in feed conversion. Wyne et al. (1956) reared 1,080 poults in a pole-type house, allowing 3.2 and 5.5 square feet of floor space per bird in two different lots from 8 to 24 weeks of age. They found no significant difference between the two groups in weight, gain or feed conversion. Wyne et al. (1957a) in another similar experiment allowed 4-square feet of floor space per bird from 16 to 24 weeks of age, with no significant difference in average body weight at 24 weeks of age, when compared with birds having varying amounts of floor space earlier in life. The same au-
thors (1957b) in a more extensive report on 1,000 Broad Breasted Bronze in 16 different groups confined and in outdoor lots of Ladino clover range, found a highly significant weight advantage at 24 weeks of age with the range reared turkeys. There was no significant difference in feed conversion for either location. The birds on range had less hock joint trouble, but higher mortality than those confined in a house. The environment had no effect on the live market quality of the birds. Black (1958) compared several hundred Broad White turkeys reared in two poletype sheds with range reared birds. Those confined were given 2, 4, 6 and 8 square feet of floor space per bird, while those reared on good native grass range had 218 square feet per bird (200 birds per acre). The confined birds with six square feet per bird excelled all others with more or less space, in live weight at 26 weeks of age and lowest mortality (4.2 percent), and they rated second in live market quality. Males and females were combined in these tests. Feed conversion was better among range reared birds, being 4.02 pounds of feed per pound gain, compared with 4.19 and 4.43 on six and eight square feet, respectively. Mortality was much higher on range (averaging 18.5 percent), due mostly to losses from wolves. The range reared birds graded much lower as dressed birds than those confined, having 12.6 percent below grade A, compared with 3.4 percent for the group with eight square feet per bird. Draper (1959) found that 23 entries of Broad Breasted toms reared on range averaged approximately 1.0 pound more per bird than a similar number reared in confinement. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
It seemed advisable to compare results of confined and range reared turkeys at the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Sta-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on June 11, 2015
ference in rate of growth or in the quality of the mature birds. Less feed was consumed by the range reared birds, but feed cost was greater per pound of turkey sold due to greater losses on the range. Both lots of confined birds gave better net returns than the range reared birds. Thompson et al. (1932) concluded after three years results, that a house 12 by 16 feet with an enclosed outdoor concrete slab the same size was adequate to satisfactorily grow 22 turkeys to 26 weeks of age. These investigators also obtained satisfactory results with a four-yard rotation system where each yard was occupied 7 days in 28, a practice which had been used in New England previously.
CONFINEMENT OR RANGE FOR TURKEYS
At 8 weeks of age, July 10, all turkeys were weighed individually and 200 with red badges were transferred to a two-acre tract enclosed with a six-foot wire fence well sodded with Sudan grass. The yard was equipped with a 12 by 20 foot range shelter and three portable 8 by 8 foot sheds each of which was equipped with 4 open top cylindrical vertical feeders. Two 55 gallon barrels with automatic waterers completed the equipment. The 200 with white badges were retained in a portion of a large new poletype house. The irregular space occupied amounted to approximately 13 square feet per bird. The same kind and number of feeders were used for this group and water was provided in 5, 8-foot v-shaped automatic troughs. Facilities were not available for replicate lots. The experiment was divided into six four-week and one two-week periods. Feed consumption was calculated on a four week bird-day basis, except for the first two periods when feed records were not kept, but a standard table was consulted for approximate quantities eaten. The confined birds were fed blocks of
low grade alfalfa hay to partly compensate for the green forage available on range. It was recognized that alfalfa hay and succulent Sudan grass were not comparable in chemical composition or volume consumed; however, since it was not practical to supply daily fresh grass to the confined group they were fed hay in lieu of grass. The wet season gave a good stand of Sudan until it was killed by frost in early October. No record was kept of the quantity of alfalfa hay or green forage consumed. FEEDING SYSTEM USED
All rations from start to finish were fed as granules, prepared at the college Feed Technology Laboratory. A 26 percent protein starter was used the first eight weeks, a 20 percent protein grower ration was fed during the 9 to 16 week period and a 16 percent protein finisher mixture was provided for the 17 to 26 week period (Table 1). The cost of feed for each protein level was calculated by using the retail price of each ingredient plus a fixed price for grinding, mixing and bagging and a markup of $10 a ton as retail handling and profit (Table 1). All turkeys in the two groups were individually weighed November 13, when 26 weeks of age. The following day they were trucked about 70 miles where they were killed and dressed the same day. Each turkey was graded according to 1956 U. S. standards when New York dressed as it moved along the line. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Conditions throughout this experiment were considered normal, except the excessive rainfall and low temperatures. There were no birds with deformities such as crooked legs, crooked keels, blistered breasts or pendulous crops in either group. Mortality for the 9 to 26 week period
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on June 11, 2015
tion where new housing and brooding facilities and a range not previously occupied by poultry were available. ' Approximately 500 poults were hatched May 16, 1958 for this comparison. They consisted of 375 pure strain Broad Breasted Bronze, 72 strain cross poults of the same breed and 50 Broad Whites selected at random. These were kept in electric heated battery brooders until 17 days of age when they were transferred to a large gas heated floor brooder. One wing on each poult was clipped at one week of age and all were debeaked when 11 days old. All poults were wing banded with colored plastic badges when 18 days of age. Red badges were placed on one half the poults and the other half was banded alternately with white badges.
1089
1090
L. F. PAYNE TABLE 1.—One basal ration •was fed as granules with three changes in protein level as shown below Rations 1 A 0-8 wks.
B 9-16 wks.
C 17-26 wks.
Corn, yellow, ground Milo, ground Oats, ground Middlings, shorts Alfalfa meal, 17% prot. dehyd. Soybean oil meal, 44% prot., solv. Fish meal, 60% prot. Meat and bone scraps, 50% prot. Soluferm or equivalent® Calcium carbonate (gr. limestone) Steamed bone meal Sodium chloride (salt)
20.0 lbs. 19.0 lbs. 0.0 lbs. 10.0 lbs. 5.0 lbs. 30.0 lbs. 5.0 lbs. 5.0 lbs. 2.5 lbs. 2.0 lbs. 1.0 lbs. 0.5 lbs.
27.0 lbs. 27.0 lbs. 10.0 lbs. 0.0 lbs. 5.0 lbs. 20.0 lbs. 2.0 lbs. 3.0 lbs. 2.0 lbs. 0.5 lbs. 3.0 lbs. 0.5 lbs.
32.0 lbs. 31.0 lbs. 0.0 lbs. 12.0 lbs. 5.0 lbs. 10.0 lbs. 0.0 lbs. 4.0 lbs. 2.5 lbs. 2.0 lbs. 1.0 lbs. 0.5 lbs.
100.0 lbs. $5.30
100.0 lbs. $4.70
100.0 lbs. $4.43
Total Cost per 100 pounds2
Mineral supplement and vitamin mixture added per 100 pounds CCC-244® (Trace mix) 23.0 gms. 23.0 gms. B Vit., Sup. Fortafeed® 2-49-90 46.0 gms. 21b./T 113.0 gms. 5 lb./T Antibiotic, sup. Aurofac® 1.8-1.8 250.0 gms. 230.0 gms. 10 lb./T Coccidiostat-Bifuran® 46.0 gms. 2 1b./T 23.0 gms. 1 lb./T DL Methionine 46.0 gms. 2 lb./T 0.0 Lysine 13.0 gms. J lb./T 0.0 Vit. A (10,000 U.S.P./gm.) 25.0 gms. 20.0 gms. Vit. D 3 (3,000 I.C.U./gm.) 20.0 gms. 15.0 gms. Vit. E (20,000 I.U./lb.) 10.0 gms. (440 I.U.) 0.0 Vit. K (Sodium Bisulfate) 0.2 gms. (200 mg.) 0.0 Total grams
Protein % Fat% Fiber % Calories, per/lb. Riboflavin, mg. per/lb. Pantothenic acid, mg. per/lb. Niacin, mg. per/lb. Choline, mg. per/lb. Calcium % Phosphorus % Vit. A., U.S.P./lb. Vit. D., I.C.U./lb. Calorie-Protein ratio
479.0
424.0
424.0 Calculated analysis 26.1 2.97 5.11 807.0 3.4J 8.7 22.5 434.4 1.99 0.98 5,800.0 600.0 31:1
23.0 gms. 113.0 gms. 230.0 gms. 23.0 gms. 0.0 0.0 20.0 gms. 15.0 gms. 0.0 0.0
19.89 2.99 5.38 884.0 6.2 14.2 33.5 531.0 2.3 1.26 5,405.0 450.0 44:1
16.3 3.26 4.45 925.0 6.09 14.1 37.8 431.1 1.5 0.70 5,480.0 450.0 57:1
1 All rations were prepared in the KSC Feed Technology Laboratory, under the supervision of Dr. Waldon H. Hastings, according to formulas prepared by Dr. Paul E. Sanford, poultry nutritionist. 2 Local retail prices for ingredients, plus manufactures markup and retailers markup were used to calculate cost of rations. ®=Registered Trade Mark.
was 13 birds for both lots or 3.25 percent (Table 2). There was more feather picking among the confined birds. The plumage after the 20th week was smoother and glossier on
the range birds. There was relatively little waste of feed in either group from the cylindrical type feeders used, with one feeder for 16 birds. Feed consumption (Table 2) was
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on June 11, 2015
Ingredient
1091
CONFINEMENT OR RANGE FOR TURKEYS TABLE 2.—The amount offeed consumed per bird for each period and total to 26 weeks of age
Mortality Age in weeks
Total
Housed Range
Housed 1.961 6.80 1 9.92 14.11 18.67 21.67 12.45 85.58
— —
— 1 2 3 1 0
1.961 6.80 1 9.69 14.20 19.46 22.64 13.07
6
7
87.82
1 0 3 1 1
1 Feed and mortality records were not kept the first 8 weeks as all poults were brooded together. Feed consumption figures the first 8 weeks were taken from the standard allowed in the January, 1958, Turkey World, page 29.
slightly more per bird for the range lot after the 13th week. The additional exercise might account for this difference. The total feed consumed per bird is slightly less than the 89.16 pounds listed in Turkey World, footnote, Table 2, for standard growth. Table 3 shows the average weight of the two lots to be practically the same at 8 weeks of age when they were divided. When 26 weeks old the males on range averaged 1.5 pounds heavier than those in confinement, and the females were .94 pound larger for the range group. The combined mean weight of males and fe-
1 Computed according to Fisher's L.S.D. as described by Snedecor, 1956.
TABLE 3.—Average weight in pounds of males and females and feed consumed per pound of gain Housed
Range Mean Average weight of both sexes at 8 wks. Average weight males at 26 wks. Average weight of females at 26 wks. Average weight of both sexes at 26 wks. Feed consumed per pound of turkey Feed cost per pound of turkey (weighted price) Price received, live weight
3.67 24.77 15.45 20.10 4.36 $ 0.20 Males Females
s.d. 2.457 1.356
Mean 3.76 23.27 14.51 18.88 4.53 $ 0.204 $0.20 per pound $0.24 per pound
s.d. 2.034 1.034
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on June 11, 2015
0-4 5- 8 9-12 13-16 17-20 21-24 25-26
Range
Pounds of feed consumed per bird
males on range was 1.22 pounds heavier than the housed group. The mean weight of males on range was 24.77 pounds each while those housed averaged 23.27, which was a significant difference (P<.05). 1 The mean weight of the females on range was 15.45 pounds and those in the house averaged 14.51, which is also significant (P<.05). When the male and female weights for each group were combined the difference in weight was highly significant (P<.001), favoring those on range. Draper of Texas (1959) reported approximately one pound difference in favor of 23 range reared lots of toms. He gave no comparisons for hens. These results agree with Wyne (1957a) who found a highly significant weight advantage with range reared turkeys at 24 weeks of age. However, Black (1958) found that turkeys reared on six square feet per bird in a shed averaged 0.67 pound heavier than turkeys on range. In our work feed conversion and cost of feed per pound of turkey were slightly in favor of the range reared group, the same as reported by Milby and Thompson (1940), Moore (1954) and Black (1958). It will be noted in Table 3 that the price
1092
L. F. PAYNE TABLE 4.—Distribution of market grades of dressed turkeys (New York style)1 Grades A
B
C
Total
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Males • Females Both
90 86 176
86.53 95.55 90.72
12 3 15
11.53 3.33 7.73
2 1 3
1.92 1.11 1.54
104 90 194
99.98 99.99 99.99
Housed:
Males Females Both
87 72 159
76.99 90.00 82.38
23 7 30
20.35 8.75 15.54
3 1 4
2.56 1.25 2.07
113 80 193
99.99 100.00 99.00
Dif. in favor of range:
Males Females Both
9.54 5.55 8.34
-8.82 —5.42 -7.81
-.67 —.14 -.53
1 The turkeys were graded by Prof. T. B. Avery, Head of the Poultry Department at Kansas State University.
received for the live turkeys barely paid for the feed cost. When U. S. government grades were applied to the birds dressed "New York" style (Table 4), the range reared toms showed 86.53% grade A, 11.53% grade B, and 1.92% grade C, compared with 76.99% A, 20.35% B and 2.56% C for the confined toms. While the females graded higher than the males, the range group ran about 5.5% higher in A's and 5.4% lower in B's than the confined birds. When the grades of both sexes were combined there was a difference of 8.34, 7.81 and .53 A, B, C's, respectively, in favor of the range group. More of the confined birds lacked plumpness and finish. To treat these data statistically B and C grades were combined to give larger numbers. The range reared and housed males showed a significant difference in New York dressed A and BC grades (.05
with those obtained by other investigators. While the cost of the equipment and housing was greater for the confined group, the labor required was much more for the range lot. An estimate of the time involved for feeding, watering and general care of the two groups was 30 minutes a day for those housed and 45 minutes a day for the range group. When a poletype house is used over a period of years the average housing cost per bird is materially reduced. The convenience of having the confined birds near the caretaker's residence and the total absence of anxiety over the welfare of the housed birds are advantages that cannot be measured statistically. Combining all feedstuffs in one granule mixture insured a uniform intake of nutrients, with the exception of the green forage and alfalfa hay available ad lib. A dry, hot season such as frequently experienced in northeastern Kansas could have affected results downward, compared with the results from the mild, wet season that prevailed. There was only one day, August 29, when the temperature reached 100° F. during the summer of
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on June 11, 2015
Range:
CONFINEMENT OR RANGE FOR TURKEYS
SUMMARY
Four hundred Broad Breasted Bronze and Broad White poults were randomized and identified with red and white wing badges at 18 days of age. When 8 weeks old the 200 with red badges were moved to a two acre Sudan covered range and the 200 with white badges were retained in a pole-type house, occupying an area slightly^more than 40 by 60 feet. Both lots received the same ration, except for green feed, care and management to 26 weeks of age, when the experiment terminated. An all-granule feed from start to finish with variable protein levels provided uniform consumption of nutrients, simplicity in feeding, and a minimum of waste. The range reared toms averaged 1.50 pounds more than the housed toms and the hens on range were .94 pound heavier than the confined hens. There was a difference of only .17 pound in feed conversion in favor of the range group. The increase of 33% in labor for the range birds partly offsets the weight difference. Mortality was 3.25% for both groups 8 to 26 weeks of age. The birds on range graded higher when dressed New York style than the confined group, showing 8.34% more A grade and 7.81% fewer B grade.
The extremely favorable season probably worked to the advantage of the birds on the range. These results confirm those reported by others, namely that meat type turkeys can be grown satisfactorily in Kansas when confined in a pole-type house. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author is grateful to Amos J. Kahrs, Superintendent of the University Poultry Farm, for general supervision and to Clifford Budden for meticulous care of the birds and accuracy in keeping the records. REFERENCES Brown, E. T., 1924. Turkey rearing on limited areas. Ministry Agri. J. 30: 941-945. Brooks, F. D., 1927. Raising turkeys in partial confinement. Poultry Sci. 6:232-238. Black, D. O., 1958. Shed versus range-rearing. Turkey World (Sept.), 33: 55-57. Draper, G. H., 1959. Fifth Texas random sample turkey meat production test. Turkey World (January) : 20. Kennard, D. C , and V. D. Chamberlin, 1930. Experiments on growing turkeys. Ohio Biomonthly Bui. 203: 50-53. Milby, T. T., and R. B. Thompson, 1940. Limited range for growing turkeys. Poultry Sci. 21: 243246. Moore, E. N., V. D. Chamberlin and R. D. Carter, 1954. A study of management, cost and mortality of turkeys produced in a pole shelter as compared to range rearing. Ohio Agri. Expt. Sta., mimeograph, number 36, June. Rettger, L. F., and W. F. Kirkpatrkk, 1927. An epidemiological study of blackhead in turkeys. Storrs, Connecticut Agri. Expt. Sta. Bull. 148, pp. 225-313. Thompson, R. B., E. E. Schnetzler and W. P. Albright, 1932. Growing turkeys in confinement. Oklahoma Agri. Expt. Sta. Bull. 202: 1-16. Van Es, L., and J. F. Olney, 1941. Poultry diseases and parasites. University of Nebraska Agri. Expt. Sta. Bull 332, pp. 1-90. Wyne, J. W., M. G. McGartney and V. D. Chamberlin, 1956. Some management factors for brooding and rearing turkeys in confinement. Poultry Sci. 35: 1180.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on June 11, 2015
1958, with an average maximum for July, through November inclusive of 82.9°F. The long time maximum average over the same period was 84.9°F. according to the weather records kept in the Kansas State University Department of Physics. Rainfall for the same five months was 26.9 inches for 1958 and 15.05 inches for the long time mean. Since buyers in this area do not pay according to grade, the difference in the dressed grades in this test was not a factor in the price received.
1093
1094
L. F. PAYNE
Wyne, J. W., M. G. McCartney, V. D. Chamberlin and R. D. Carter, 1957a. Some management factors for rearing turkeys in confinement. Poultry Sci. 36: 1170. finement.
Wyne, J. W., R. D. Carter, V. D. Chamberlin and M. G. McCartney, 1957b. Comparison of feeding systems for growing turkeys on range and in conPoultry Sci. 36: 1262-1266.
Factors Affecting the Vitamin K Requirement of the Chick
(Received for publication March 9, 1959)
B
LACK et al. (1942), Romberg, Daft and Sebrell (1944a, b) and Seeler el al. (1944) reported that sulfaguanidine, sulfapyrazine, sulfadiazine, sulfathiazole and sulfaquinoxaline induced vitamin K deficiency in rats and dogs. Asplin and Boyland (1947) found that sulfamethazine increased the blood clotting time of chicks and that this effect was overcome with vitamin K. Farr and Jaquette (1947) reported that chicks six weeks of age were more susceptible to the toxic effects of sulfamethazine than those 2-4 weeks old. Delaplane and Milliff (1948) observed hemorrhages of the legs and lesions of the liver, spleen, heart and lungs of pullets fed sulfaquinoxaline. Shelton el al. (1954) noted that the effects of sulfaquinoxaline were overcome with alfalfa meal and alleviated by a low level of 2-methyl-l,4naphthoquinone (menadione). Cuckler and Ott (1955), using rations containing both natural vitamin K and menadione, reported that high levels of sulfaquinoxaline did not cause prolonged blood clotting time in chicks. In contrast, Yacowitz et al. (1955) and Yacowitz, Carter and Ross (1955) found that sulfaquinoxaline in rations containing alfalfa meal and menadione caused the occurrence of hemorrhages in chicks. The toxic effect of sulfaquinoxaline was more pronounced in chicks 3 to 5 weeks of age than in younger
chicks. Dietary penicillin appeared to increase the toxicity of this drug. Joyner and Davies (1956) obtained a close correlation between the concentration of sulfaquinoxaline in the blood and the blood clotting time. Vitamin Ki and synthetic analogues of vitamin K reduced the blood clotting time of these chicks to normal but no reduction in the incidence of lesions occurred. Griminger (1957) observed that increased amounts of menadione and menadione sodium bisulfite are necessary in the presence of sulfaquinoxaline. Griminger et al. (1953) obtained evidence that oxytetracycline (terramycin) and 3-nitro-4-hydroxyphenyl arsonic acid (arsonic acid) significantly prolonged the blood clotting time of chicks and the effect of p-aminophenylarsonic acid (arsanilic acid) was almost significant. The blood clotting time was returned to normal by the addition of either menadione or alfalfa meal to the diet. Reynolds, Warden and Luther (1953-54), on the other hand, reported that oxytetracycline (terramycin), chlortetracycline (aureomycin), procaine penicillin and bacitracin produced no unfavorable results on the blood clotting time of chicks regardless of the level of menadione in the ration. Anderson et al. (1954) found that penicillin, sulfaquinoxaline or Nitrosal [30% N4-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on June 11, 2015
T. S. NELSON AND L. C. NORMS Department of Poultry Husbandry and Graduate School of Nutrition, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Wilson, W. O., 1949. High environmental temperatures as affecting the reaction of laying hens to iodized casein. Poultry Sci. 28: 581-592. Wilson, W. O., E. H. McNally and H. Ota, 1957. Temperature and calorimeter study on hens in individual cages. Poultry Sci. 35: 1254-1262. Warren, D. C, R. Comad, A. E. Schumacher and T. B. Avery, 1950. Effects of fluctuating environ-
1087
ment on laying hens. Kansas Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull. 68:43 pp. Wheeler, N. C, and F. N. Andrews, 1943. The influence of season on semen production in the domestic fowl. Poultry Sci. 22: 361-366. Winchester, C. F., and V. C. Scarborough, 1953. Influence of thyroxine on growth and egg production of chickens. Poultry Sci. 32: 423-429.
LOYAL F.
PAYNE
Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas (Received for publication March 9, 1959)
M
A N Y experiments have been conducted comparing results of turkeys grown in confinement and on restricted or free range. While providing houses or sheds for rearing in confinement adds materially to the cost of equipment, the reduction in labor, losses from storms, stampede, predatory animals, and disease tend to offset, over a period of years, the added cost. The relatively inexpensive pole-type house has become popular, since it can be used for the dual purpose of shelter for the breeding flock and rearing quarters for young turkeys. This system requires additional brooding facilities to accommodate the young stock until six or eight weeks of age or until after the breeding season terminates. I n this way the housing facilities are in use almost the year round. Some of the questions t h a t concern growers relate to the feasibility of confinement rearing as affected b y mortality, rate of growth, feed efficiency, and the quality of mature birds. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Rettger and Kirkpatrick (1927) first Contribution number 245, Department of Poultry Husbandry, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan.
reared turkeys in confinement at Storrs, Connecticut, in 1917. During the ten years which followed they developed the four yard rotation system in which the growing turkeys occupied each yard one week in four. This proved to be a popular and a satisfactory procedure to avoid heavy losses from blackhead disease. Brooks (1927) reported on turkeys reared on clean ground in a four y a r d rotation system, with some losses from blackhead. His report on turkeys reared in confinement was incomplete. Brown (1924) reared to m a t u r i t y 96 percent of poults started in England in 1921 to 1923 on a small acreage of land. Van Es and Olney (1941) compared mortality losses from blackhead among turkeys in a sanitary gravel or hardwarecloth floored yard 30 by 60 feet and an insalubrious farm yard of equal size over a period of eight years (1929-1936). The total loss from blackhead for the entire period was 2.13 percent in the sanitary yard and 41.81 percent in the insanitary yard with no covering over the native soil. Kennard and Chamberlin (1930) reared turkeys on range, confined in houses only, and in houses with wire floored runways attached. T h e y found no significant dif-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on June 11, 2015
Turkeys Grown in Confinement and on Range
1088
L. F. PAYNE
Milby and Thompson (1940) in two trials in 1939 and 1940, found no significant difference in rate of growth between turkeys reared in confinement, in a house supplemented with a bare yard, or on a Bermuda grass range. In the confined groups feed consumption was slightly greater per unit of gain than in the range group, and there was no difference in mortality. Moore et al. (1954) compared turkeys reared in a pole-type house and on range, and found no significant difference in live market quality in the two groups, but lower mortality in the confined birds. The range reared lot held a slight advantage in feed conversion. Wyne et al. (1956) reared 1,080 poults in a pole-type house, allowing 3.2 and 5.5 square feet of floor space per bird in two different lots from 8 to 24 weeks of age. They found no significant difference between the two groups in weight, gain or feed conversion. Wyne et al. (1957a) in another similar experiment allowed 4-square feet of floor space per bird from 16 to 24 weeks of age, with no significant difference in average body weight at 24 weeks of age, when compared with birds having varying amounts of floor space earlier in life. The same au-
thors (1957b) in a more extensive report on 1,000 Broad Breasted Bronze in 16 different groups confined and in outdoor lots of Ladino clover range, found a highly significant weight advantage at 24 weeks of age with the range reared turkeys. There was no significant difference in feed conversion for either location. The birds on range had less hock joint trouble, but higher mortality than those confined in a house. The environment had no effect on the live market quality of the birds. Black (1958) compared several hundred Broad White turkeys reared in two poletype sheds with range reared birds. Those confined were given 2, 4, 6 and 8 square feet of floor space per bird, while those reared on good native grass range had 218 square feet per bird (200 birds per acre). The confined birds with six square feet per bird excelled all others with more or less space, in live weight at 26 weeks of age and lowest mortality (4.2 percent), and they rated second in live market quality. Males and females were combined in these tests. Feed conversion was better among range reared birds, being 4.02 pounds of feed per pound gain, compared with 4.19 and 4.43 on six and eight square feet, respectively. Mortality was much higher on range (averaging 18.5 percent), due mostly to losses from wolves. The range reared birds graded much lower as dressed birds than those confined, having 12.6 percent below grade A, compared with 3.4 percent for the group with eight square feet per bird. Draper (1959) found that 23 entries of Broad Breasted toms reared on range averaged approximately 1.0 pound more per bird than a similar number reared in confinement. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
It seemed advisable to compare results of confined and range reared turkeys at the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Sta-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on June 11, 2015
ference in rate of growth or in the quality of the mature birds. Less feed was consumed by the range reared birds, but feed cost was greater per pound of turkey sold due to greater losses on the range. Both lots of confined birds gave better net returns than the range reared birds. Thompson et al. (1932) concluded after three years results, that a house 12 by 16 feet with an enclosed outdoor concrete slab the same size was adequate to satisfactorily grow 22 turkeys to 26 weeks of age. These investigators also obtained satisfactory results with a four-yard rotation system where each yard was occupied 7 days in 28, a practice which had been used in New England previously.
CONFINEMENT OR RANGE FOR TURKEYS
At 8 weeks of age, July 10, all turkeys were weighed individually and 200 with red badges were transferred to a two-acre tract enclosed with a six-foot wire fence well sodded with Sudan grass. The yard was equipped with a 12 by 20 foot range shelter and three portable 8 by 8 foot sheds each of which was equipped with 4 open top cylindrical vertical feeders. Two 55 gallon barrels with automatic waterers completed the equipment. The 200 with white badges were retained in a portion of a large new poletype house. The irregular space occupied amounted to approximately 13 square feet per bird. The same kind and number of feeders were used for this group and water was provided in 5, 8-foot v-shaped automatic troughs. Facilities were not available for replicate lots. The experiment was divided into six four-week and one two-week periods. Feed consumption was calculated on a four week bird-day basis, except for the first two periods when feed records were not kept, but a standard table was consulted for approximate quantities eaten. The confined birds were fed blocks of
low grade alfalfa hay to partly compensate for the green forage available on range. It was recognized that alfalfa hay and succulent Sudan grass were not comparable in chemical composition or volume consumed; however, since it was not practical to supply daily fresh grass to the confined group they were fed hay in lieu of grass. The wet season gave a good stand of Sudan until it was killed by frost in early October. No record was kept of the quantity of alfalfa hay or green forage consumed. FEEDING SYSTEM USED
All rations from start to finish were fed as granules, prepared at the college Feed Technology Laboratory. A 26 percent protein starter was used the first eight weeks, a 20 percent protein grower ration was fed during the 9 to 16 week period and a 16 percent protein finisher mixture was provided for the 17 to 26 week period (Table 1). The cost of feed for each protein level was calculated by using the retail price of each ingredient plus a fixed price for grinding, mixing and bagging and a markup of $10 a ton as retail handling and profit (Table 1). All turkeys in the two groups were individually weighed November 13, when 26 weeks of age. The following day they were trucked about 70 miles where they were killed and dressed the same day. Each turkey was graded according to 1956 U. S. standards when New York dressed as it moved along the line. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Conditions throughout this experiment were considered normal, except the excessive rainfall and low temperatures. There were no birds with deformities such as crooked legs, crooked keels, blistered breasts or pendulous crops in either group. Mortality for the 9 to 26 week period
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on June 11, 2015
tion where new housing and brooding facilities and a range not previously occupied by poultry were available. ' Approximately 500 poults were hatched May 16, 1958 for this comparison. They consisted of 375 pure strain Broad Breasted Bronze, 72 strain cross poults of the same breed and 50 Broad Whites selected at random. These were kept in electric heated battery brooders until 17 days of age when they were transferred to a large gas heated floor brooder. One wing on each poult was clipped at one week of age and all were debeaked when 11 days old. All poults were wing banded with colored plastic badges when 18 days of age. Red badges were placed on one half the poults and the other half was banded alternately with white badges.
1089
1090
L. F. PAYNE TABLE 1.—One basal ration •was fed as granules with three changes in protein level as shown below Rations 1 A 0-8 wks.
B 9-16 wks.
C 17-26 wks.
Corn, yellow, ground Milo, ground Oats, ground Middlings, shorts Alfalfa meal, 17% prot. dehyd. Soybean oil meal, 44% prot., solv. Fish meal, 60% prot. Meat and bone scraps, 50% prot. Soluferm or equivalent® Calcium carbonate (gr. limestone) Steamed bone meal Sodium chloride (salt)
20.0 lbs. 19.0 lbs. 0.0 lbs. 10.0 lbs. 5.0 lbs. 30.0 lbs. 5.0 lbs. 5.0 lbs. 2.5 lbs. 2.0 lbs. 1.0 lbs. 0.5 lbs.
27.0 lbs. 27.0 lbs. 10.0 lbs. 0.0 lbs. 5.0 lbs. 20.0 lbs. 2.0 lbs. 3.0 lbs. 2.0 lbs. 0.5 lbs. 3.0 lbs. 0.5 lbs.
32.0 lbs. 31.0 lbs. 0.0 lbs. 12.0 lbs. 5.0 lbs. 10.0 lbs. 0.0 lbs. 4.0 lbs. 2.5 lbs. 2.0 lbs. 1.0 lbs. 0.5 lbs.
100.0 lbs. $5.30
100.0 lbs. $4.70
100.0 lbs. $4.43
Total Cost per 100 pounds2
Mineral supplement and vitamin mixture added per 100 pounds CCC-244® (Trace mix) 23.0 gms. 23.0 gms. B Vit., Sup. Fortafeed® 2-49-90 46.0 gms. 21b./T 113.0 gms. 5 lb./T Antibiotic, sup. Aurofac® 1.8-1.8 250.0 gms. 230.0 gms. 10 lb./T Coccidiostat-Bifuran® 46.0 gms. 2 1b./T 23.0 gms. 1 lb./T DL Methionine 46.0 gms. 2 lb./T 0.0 Lysine 13.0 gms. J lb./T 0.0 Vit. A (10,000 U.S.P./gm.) 25.0 gms. 20.0 gms. Vit. D 3 (3,000 I.C.U./gm.) 20.0 gms. 15.0 gms. Vit. E (20,000 I.U./lb.) 10.0 gms. (440 I.U.) 0.0 Vit. K (Sodium Bisulfate) 0.2 gms. (200 mg.) 0.0 Total grams
Protein % Fat% Fiber % Calories, per/lb. Riboflavin, mg. per/lb. Pantothenic acid, mg. per/lb. Niacin, mg. per/lb. Choline, mg. per/lb. Calcium % Phosphorus % Vit. A., U.S.P./lb. Vit. D., I.C.U./lb. Calorie-Protein ratio
479.0
424.0
424.0 Calculated analysis 26.1 2.97 5.11 807.0 3.4J 8.7 22.5 434.4 1.99 0.98 5,800.0 600.0 31:1
23.0 gms. 113.0 gms. 230.0 gms. 23.0 gms. 0.0 0.0 20.0 gms. 15.0 gms. 0.0 0.0
19.89 2.99 5.38 884.0 6.2 14.2 33.5 531.0 2.3 1.26 5,405.0 450.0 44:1
16.3 3.26 4.45 925.0 6.09 14.1 37.8 431.1 1.5 0.70 5,480.0 450.0 57:1
1 All rations were prepared in the KSC Feed Technology Laboratory, under the supervision of Dr. Waldon H. Hastings, according to formulas prepared by Dr. Paul E. Sanford, poultry nutritionist. 2 Local retail prices for ingredients, plus manufactures markup and retailers markup were used to calculate cost of rations. ®=Registered Trade Mark.
was 13 birds for both lots or 3.25 percent (Table 2). There was more feather picking among the confined birds. The plumage after the 20th week was smoother and glossier on
the range birds. There was relatively little waste of feed in either group from the cylindrical type feeders used, with one feeder for 16 birds. Feed consumption (Table 2) was
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on June 11, 2015
Ingredient
1091
CONFINEMENT OR RANGE FOR TURKEYS TABLE 2.—The amount offeed consumed per bird for each period and total to 26 weeks of age
Mortality Age in weeks
Total
Housed Range
Housed 1.961 6.80 1 9.92 14.11 18.67 21.67 12.45 85.58
— —
— 1 2 3 1 0
1.961 6.80 1 9.69 14.20 19.46 22.64 13.07
6
7
87.82
1 0 3 1 1
1 Feed and mortality records were not kept the first 8 weeks as all poults were brooded together. Feed consumption figures the first 8 weeks were taken from the standard allowed in the January, 1958, Turkey World, page 29.
slightly more per bird for the range lot after the 13th week. The additional exercise might account for this difference. The total feed consumed per bird is slightly less than the 89.16 pounds listed in Turkey World, footnote, Table 2, for standard growth. Table 3 shows the average weight of the two lots to be practically the same at 8 weeks of age when they were divided. When 26 weeks old the males on range averaged 1.5 pounds heavier than those in confinement, and the females were .94 pound larger for the range group. The combined mean weight of males and fe-
1 Computed according to Fisher's L.S.D. as described by Snedecor, 1956.
TABLE 3.—Average weight in pounds of males and females and feed consumed per pound of gain Housed
Range Mean Average weight of both sexes at 8 wks. Average weight males at 26 wks. Average weight of females at 26 wks. Average weight of both sexes at 26 wks. Feed consumed per pound of turkey Feed cost per pound of turkey (weighted price) Price received, live weight
3.67 24.77 15.45 20.10 4.36 $ 0.20 Males Females
s.d. 2.457 1.356
Mean 3.76 23.27 14.51 18.88 4.53 $ 0.204 $0.20 per pound $0.24 per pound
s.d. 2.034 1.034
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on June 11, 2015
0-4 5- 8 9-12 13-16 17-20 21-24 25-26
Range
Pounds of feed consumed per bird
males on range was 1.22 pounds heavier than the housed group. The mean weight of males on range was 24.77 pounds each while those housed averaged 23.27, which was a significant difference (P<.05). 1 The mean weight of the females on range was 15.45 pounds and those in the house averaged 14.51, which is also significant (P<.05). When the male and female weights for each group were combined the difference in weight was highly significant (P<.001), favoring those on range. Draper of Texas (1959) reported approximately one pound difference in favor of 23 range reared lots of toms. He gave no comparisons for hens. These results agree with Wyne (1957a) who found a highly significant weight advantage with range reared turkeys at 24 weeks of age. However, Black (1958) found that turkeys reared on six square feet per bird in a shed averaged 0.67 pound heavier than turkeys on range. In our work feed conversion and cost of feed per pound of turkey were slightly in favor of the range reared group, the same as reported by Milby and Thompson (1940), Moore (1954) and Black (1958). It will be noted in Table 3 that the price
1092
L. F. PAYNE TABLE 4.—Distribution of market grades of dressed turkeys (New York style)1 Grades A
B
C
Total
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Males • Females Both
90 86 176
86.53 95.55 90.72
12 3 15
11.53 3.33 7.73
2 1 3
1.92 1.11 1.54
104 90 194
99.98 99.99 99.99
Housed:
Males Females Both
87 72 159
76.99 90.00 82.38
23 7 30
20.35 8.75 15.54
3 1 4
2.56 1.25 2.07
113 80 193
99.99 100.00 99.00
Dif. in favor of range:
Males Females Both
9.54 5.55 8.34
-8.82 —5.42 -7.81
-.67 —.14 -.53
1 The turkeys were graded by Prof. T. B. Avery, Head of the Poultry Department at Kansas State University.
received for the live turkeys barely paid for the feed cost. When U. S. government grades were applied to the birds dressed "New York" style (Table 4), the range reared toms showed 86.53% grade A, 11.53% grade B, and 1.92% grade C, compared with 76.99% A, 20.35% B and 2.56% C for the confined toms. While the females graded higher than the males, the range group ran about 5.5% higher in A's and 5.4% lower in B's than the confined birds. When the grades of both sexes were combined there was a difference of 8.34, 7.81 and .53 A, B, C's, respectively, in favor of the range group. More of the confined birds lacked plumpness and finish. To treat these data statistically B and C grades were combined to give larger numbers. The range reared and housed males showed a significant difference in New York dressed A and BC grades (.05
with those obtained by other investigators. While the cost of the equipment and housing was greater for the confined group, the labor required was much more for the range lot. An estimate of the time involved for feeding, watering and general care of the two groups was 30 minutes a day for those housed and 45 minutes a day for the range group. When a poletype house is used over a period of years the average housing cost per bird is materially reduced. The convenience of having the confined birds near the caretaker's residence and the total absence of anxiety over the welfare of the housed birds are advantages that cannot be measured statistically. Combining all feedstuffs in one granule mixture insured a uniform intake of nutrients, with the exception of the green forage and alfalfa hay available ad lib. A dry, hot season such as frequently experienced in northeastern Kansas could have affected results downward, compared with the results from the mild, wet season that prevailed. There was only one day, August 29, when the temperature reached 100° F. during the summer of
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on June 11, 2015
Range:
CONFINEMENT OR RANGE FOR TURKEYS
SUMMARY
Four hundred Broad Breasted Bronze and Broad White poults were randomized and identified with red and white wing badges at 18 days of age. When 8 weeks old the 200 with red badges were moved to a two acre Sudan covered range and the 200 with white badges were retained in a pole-type house, occupying an area slightly^more than 40 by 60 feet. Both lots received the same ration, except for green feed, care and management to 26 weeks of age, when the experiment terminated. An all-granule feed from start to finish with variable protein levels provided uniform consumption of nutrients, simplicity in feeding, and a minimum of waste. The range reared toms averaged 1.50 pounds more than the housed toms and the hens on range were .94 pound heavier than the confined hens. There was a difference of only .17 pound in feed conversion in favor of the range group. The increase of 33% in labor for the range birds partly offsets the weight difference. Mortality was 3.25% for both groups 8 to 26 weeks of age. The birds on range graded higher when dressed New York style than the confined group, showing 8.34% more A grade and 7.81% fewer B grade.
The extremely favorable season probably worked to the advantage of the birds on the range. These results confirm those reported by others, namely that meat type turkeys can be grown satisfactorily in Kansas when confined in a pole-type house. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author is grateful to Amos J. Kahrs, Superintendent of the University Poultry Farm, for general supervision and to Clifford Budden for meticulous care of the birds and accuracy in keeping the records. REFERENCES Brown, E. T., 1924. Turkey rearing on limited areas. Ministry Agri. J. 30: 941-945. Brooks, F. D., 1927. Raising turkeys in partial confinement. Poultry Sci. 6:232-238. Black, D. O., 1958. Shed versus range-rearing. Turkey World (Sept.), 33: 55-57. Draper, G. H., 1959. Fifth Texas random sample turkey meat production test. Turkey World (January) : 20. Kennard, D. C , and V. D. Chamberlin, 1930. Experiments on growing turkeys. Ohio Biomonthly Bui. 203: 50-53. Milby, T. T., and R. B. Thompson, 1940. Limited range for growing turkeys. Poultry Sci. 21: 243246. Moore, E. N., V. D. Chamberlin and R. D. Carter, 1954. A study of management, cost and mortality of turkeys produced in a pole shelter as compared to range rearing. Ohio Agri. Expt. Sta., mimeograph, number 36, June. Rettger, L. F., and W. F. Kirkpatrkk, 1927. An epidemiological study of blackhead in turkeys. Storrs, Connecticut Agri. Expt. Sta. Bull. 148, pp. 225-313. Thompson, R. B., E. E. Schnetzler and W. P. Albright, 1932. Growing turkeys in confinement. Oklahoma Agri. Expt. Sta. Bull. 202: 1-16. Van Es, L., and J. F. Olney, 1941. Poultry diseases and parasites. University of Nebraska Agri. Expt. Sta. Bull 332, pp. 1-90. Wyne, J. W., M. G. McGartney and V. D. Chamberlin, 1956. Some management factors for brooding and rearing turkeys in confinement. Poultry Sci. 35: 1180.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on June 11, 2015
1958, with an average maximum for July, through November inclusive of 82.9°F. The long time maximum average over the same period was 84.9°F. according to the weather records kept in the Kansas State University Department of Physics. Rainfall for the same five months was 26.9 inches for 1958 and 15.05 inches for the long time mean. Since buyers in this area do not pay according to grade, the difference in the dressed grades in this test was not a factor in the price received.
1093
1094
L. F. PAYNE
Wyne, J. W., M. G. McCartney, V. D. Chamberlin and R. D. Carter, 1957a. Some management factors for rearing turkeys in confinement. Poultry Sci. 36: 1170. finement.
Wyne, J. W., R. D. Carter, V. D. Chamberlin and M. G. McCartney, 1957b. Comparison of feeding systems for growing turkeys on range and in conPoultry Sci. 36: 1262-1266.
Factors Affecting the Vitamin K Requirement of the Chick
(Received for publication March 9, 1959)
B
LACK et al. (1942), Romberg, Daft and Sebrell (1944a, b) and Seeler el al. (1944) reported that sulfaguanidine, sulfapyrazine, sulfadiazine, sulfathiazole and sulfaquinoxaline induced vitamin K deficiency in rats and dogs. Asplin and Boyland (1947) found that sulfamethazine increased the blood clotting time of chicks and that this effect was overcome with vitamin K. Farr and Jaquette (1947) reported that chicks six weeks of age were more susceptible to the toxic effects of sulfamethazine than those 2-4 weeks old. Delaplane and Milliff (1948) observed hemorrhages of the legs and lesions of the liver, spleen, heart and lungs of pullets fed sulfaquinoxaline. Shelton el al. (1954) noted that the effects of sulfaquinoxaline were overcome with alfalfa meal and alleviated by a low level of 2-methyl-l,4naphthoquinone (menadione). Cuckler and Ott (1955), using rations containing both natural vitamin K and menadione, reported that high levels of sulfaquinoxaline did not cause prolonged blood clotting time in chicks. In contrast, Yacowitz et al. (1955) and Yacowitz, Carter and Ross (1955) found that sulfaquinoxaline in rations containing alfalfa meal and menadione caused the occurrence of hemorrhages in chicks. The toxic effect of sulfaquinoxaline was more pronounced in chicks 3 to 5 weeks of age than in younger
chicks. Dietary penicillin appeared to increase the toxicity of this drug. Joyner and Davies (1956) obtained a close correlation between the concentration of sulfaquinoxaline in the blood and the blood clotting time. Vitamin Ki and synthetic analogues of vitamin K reduced the blood clotting time of these chicks to normal but no reduction in the incidence of lesions occurred. Griminger (1957) observed that increased amounts of menadione and menadione sodium bisulfite are necessary in the presence of sulfaquinoxaline. Griminger et al. (1953) obtained evidence that oxytetracycline (terramycin) and 3-nitro-4-hydroxyphenyl arsonic acid (arsonic acid) significantly prolonged the blood clotting time of chicks and the effect of p-aminophenylarsonic acid (arsanilic acid) was almost significant. The blood clotting time was returned to normal by the addition of either menadione or alfalfa meal to the diet. Reynolds, Warden and Luther (1953-54), on the other hand, reported that oxytetracycline (terramycin), chlortetracycline (aureomycin), procaine penicillin and bacitracin produced no unfavorable results on the blood clotting time of chicks regardless of the level of menadione in the ration. Anderson et al. (1954) found that penicillin, sulfaquinoxaline or Nitrosal [30% N4-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Northern Arizona University on June 11, 2015
T. S. NELSON AND L. C. NORMS Department of Poultry Husbandry and Graduate School of Nutrition, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York